Page 113 - GSTL_7th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 1

2020 ] ARIHANT TILES & MARBLES PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), JODHPUR 71
2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 71 (Tri. - Del.)

IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
[COURT NO. IV]
Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (J)
ARIHANT TILES & MARBLES PVT. LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), JODHPUR
Final Order Nos. A/51400-51402/2019-SM(BR), dated 31-10-2019
in Appeal Nos. ST/50120-50122/2019-SM
Interest - Delayed payment of interest amount - Assessee pleading in-
terest, compensatory in nature and delay of 10 years in getting interest refund-
ed, entitles assessee to be compensated for same - HELD : As per Section 11BB
of Central Excise Act, 1944, interest is allowed on delayed refunds but provi-
sion silent about any interest on delayed payment of interest as claimed herein
- Inordinate delay for grant of justified claim may entitle person to get com-
pensation against that delay - However, Tribunal not empowered to award
compensation as not being provided by statute - Also claim for interest on
amount of delayed interest cannot be called as claim of compensation suo
motu - Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to Service Tax
vide Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994. - It becomes clear that inordinate delay for the
grant of justified claim may entitle the person to get compensation against that delay the
power of granting compensation is an inherent power. Present being a tribunal is not
vested with any such inherent power. This Tribunal is a quasi judicial authority which is
absolutely bound by the statutory provisions. [paras 6.1, 7, 8]
Interest - Delayed payment of interest amount - Rule of first appropri-
ating interest applicable only to debts or to decreetal amount - Said rule of in-
terpretation otherwise contained in Order 21 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Proce-
dure, 1908 relating to execution of decrees for recovery of money - Such provi-
sion stands absolutely excluded from Central Excise Act, 1944 - Further, clarifi-
cation by Hon’ble Apex Court in V. Kala Bharathi to the effect that, “after such
appropriation the decree holder is entitled to interest only to the extent of un-
paid principal amount. Hence, the interest be calculated on the unpaid princi-
pal amount”, stands unsatisfied by assessee - No infirmity in orders under
challenge and same, upheld - Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 as ap-
plicable to Service Tax vide Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994. [paras 9, 10]
Appeals dismissed
CASES CITED
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Narender Doshil — 254 ITR 606 (S.C.) — Distinguished ...... [Para 6.1]
Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals v. CIT — 2008 (300) ITR 328 (Guj.) — Distinguished .............. [Paras 3, 3.1, 7]
Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate v. Smithaben H. Patel
— AIR 1999 (SC) 1036 — Referred .............................................................................................. [Para 3.2]
Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. Commissioner
— 2006 (196) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) — Distinguished .................................................... [Paras 3, 4.1, 6.1, 7]
State of Gujarat v. Unjha Pharmacy — 2016 (341) E.L.T. 211 (Guj.) — Referred ............................ [Para 3.1]
V. Kala Bharathi v. Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. — AIR 2014 SC 1563 — Distinguished ................ [Paras 3.2, 9]
GST LAW TIMES  7th May 2020  113